[squeak-dev] Re: SqueakMap Status?

> Hi again!
>
> Ok, now I made a fix to "SqueakMap2 Base" (SMBase) - available on SM,
> version 1.24. Use that and in your release procedure you can do:
>
> SMSqueakMap default purge
>
> ...and it still will work when freshly installed.
>
> That should get you to around 13.79 Mb (well, with 3.10.2-7179 at least).
>

> On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:02 +0100, Göran Krampe wrote:
>> Hi again!
>>
>> Ok, now I made a fix to "SqueakMap2 Base" (SMBase) - available on SM,
>> version 1.24. Use that and in your release procedure you can do:
>>
>> SMSqueakMap default purge
>>
>> ...and it still will work when freshly installed.
>>
>> That should get you to around 13.79 Mb (well, with 3.10.2-7179 at least).
>>
> Was it something different than
>
> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=193
>
> http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=7201
> slightly
> ?

> Norbert Hartl wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:02 +0100, Göran Krampe wrote:
> >> Hi again!
> >>
> >> Ok, now I made a fix to "SqueakMap2 Base" (SMBase) - available on SM,
> >> version 1.24. Use that and in your release procedure you can do:
> >>
> >> SMSqueakMap default purge
> >>
> >> ...and it still will work when freshly installed.
> >>
> >> That should get you to around 13.79 Mb (well, with 3.10.2-7179 at least).
> >>
> > Was it something different than
> >
> > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=193
> >
> > http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=7201
> > slightly
> > ?
>
> Bloody hell :).
>
> I didn't check on Mantis because I thought Keith had already checked (me
> emailed me). BUT... I think my fix is better - I made sure that when you
> try to open the UI for SM it will note that the map is indeed purged AND
> that you don't have a map on disk - and it will tell you that and offer
> to load a map from the net.
>
> Ah... but if you *decline* doing that my fix is probably not complete.
> Right, then you will end up in the debugger anyway of course. Ok, I will
> integrate this fix too and even though running a UI on top of a purged
> map might be "error prone" - it is probably better than refusing to open
> the UI. :)
>
> Thanks Norbert for the heads up.

>
>> Somehow I got amiable through Keiths Mail to the pharo list. He was
>> blaming the pharo crew for not caring about squeak and things/fixes
>> others do. That was exactly the reason back then for me to fix it in
>> pharo and then open a bug on mantis as well. So it turns out that the
>> integrational aspect doesn't work in either direction.
>>
> It would work fine if....
>
> SqueakMap was treated as an external package to both squeak and pharo,
> and the repo, or at least a repo is available to any contributors that
> want to improve things.

> If in the case of SqueakMap situation mentioned you "fixed it in  
> pharo"
> then that means there is likely to be a new SMBase with your  
> initials on
> it, where is it? If it is languishing in a pharo repository, then that
> simply illustrates my point. Namely, that pharo should conceptually
> treat external packages as external packages, and contributors  
> should be
> encouraged to improve such external packages for everyone. e.g. tell  
> the
> maintainer what is going on, and check your changes back in to the  
> main
> development stream... isn't it rude not to?

>
> On Feb 13, 2009, at 18:06 , Keith Hodges wrote:
>
>>
>>> Somehow I got amiable through Keiths Mail to the pharo list. He was
>>> blaming the pharo crew for not caring about squeak and things/fixes
>>> others do. That was exactly the reason back then for me to fix it in
>>> pharo and then open a bug on mantis as well. So it turns out that the
>>> integrational aspect doesn't work in either direction.
>>>
>> It would work fine if....
>>
>> SqueakMap was treated as an external package to both squeak and pharo,
>> and the repo, or at least a repo is available to any contributors that
>> want to improve things.
>
> [...]
>
>> If in the case of SqueakMap situation mentioned you "fixed it in pharo"
>> then that means there is likely to be a new SMBase with your initials on
>> it, where is it? If it is languishing in a pharo repository, then that
>> simply illustrates my point. Namely, that pharo should conceptually
>> treat external packages as external packages, and contributors should be
>> encouraged to improve such external packages for everyone. e.g. tell the
>> maintainer what is going on, and check your changes back in to the main
>> development stream... isn't it rude not to?
>
> For version 1.0 we've planned to remove SqueakMap from the Pharo core and
> treat it as an external package.
>
>> My complaint against pharo is that while the rest of the squeak
>> community has been trying to modularize the image and treat more and
>> more modules as external loadable packages. The pharo team goes back 3
>> (?) years and ignores anything done in said external projects in the
>
> As a side note, Keith, I'm slightly getting annoyed being criticized over
> again for what we do wrong in your opinion. To do it our own way without
> conflicting with the Squeak way of doing (or not doing) things, is why we
> left. I believe that we can profit from the common effort, but it should
> happen in a constructive way.
>
> Adrian
>
>

> De: Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]>
> Asunto: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: SqueakMap Status?
> Para: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" <[hidden email]>
> Fecha: viernes, 13 de febrero de 2009, 3:53 pm
> 2009/2/13 Adrian Lienhard <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2009, at 18:06 , Keith Hodges wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> Somehow I got amiable through Keiths Mail to
> the pharo list. He was
> >>> blaming the pharo crew for not caring about
> squeak and things/fixes
> >>> others do. That was exactly the reason back
> then for me to fix it in
> >>> pharo and then open a bug on mantis as well.
> So it turns out that the
> >>> integrational aspect doesn't work in
> either direction.
> >>>
> >> It would work fine if....
> >>
> >> SqueakMap was treated as an external package to
> both squeak and pharo,
> >> and the repo, or at least a repo is available to
> any contributors that
> >> want to improve things.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> If in the case of SqueakMap situation mentioned
> you "fixed it in pharo"
> >> then that means there is likely to be a new SMBase
> with your initials on
> >> it, where is it? If it is languishing in a pharo
> repository, then that
> >> simply illustrates my point. Namely, that pharo
> should conceptually
> >> treat external packages as external packages, and
> contributors should be
> >> encouraged to improve such external packages for
> everyone. e.g. tell the
> >> maintainer what is going on, and check your
> changes back in to the main
> >> development stream... isn't it rude not to?
> >
> > For version 1.0 we've planned to remove SqueakMap
> from the Pharo core and
> > treat it as an external package.
> >
> >> My complaint against pharo is that while the rest
> of the squeak
> >> community has been trying to modularize the image
> and treat more and
> >> more modules as external loadable packages. The
> pharo team goes back 3
> >> (?) years and ignores anything done in said
> external projects in the
> >
> > As a side note, Keith, I'm slightly getting
> annoyed being criticized over
> > again for what we do wrong in your opinion. To do it
> our own way without
> > conflicting with the Squeak way of doing (or not
> doing) things, is why we
> > left. I believe that we can profit from the common
> effort, but it should
> > happen in a constructive way.
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> >
>
> Keith, i understand your rightfull indignation.
> But i personally feel, that people who making fixes to
> external
> packages having no intent on keeping them private.
> It comes simply from different development process they
> involved in,
> and our common laziness to do something in addition (like
> ANN the fix)
> to what possibly be done to fix some annoying issue.
>
> I seen multiple 'twas already fixed in XYZ' in this
> mailing list. And
> XYZ is not always =='Pharo' :)
> I think that such message could serve as a signal for
> backporting/reintegration but not as a signal to bash
> people :)
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

>
>> My complaint against pharo is that while the rest of the squeak
>> community has been trying to modularize the image and treat more and
>> more modules as external loadable packages. The pharo team goes  
>> back 3
>> (?) years and ignores anything done in said external projects in the
>
> As a side note, Keith, I'm slightly getting annoyed being criticized  
> over again for what we do wrong in your opinion. To do it our own  
> way without conflicting with the Squeak way of doing (or not doing)  
> things, is why we left. I believe that we can profit from the common  
> effort, but it should happen in a constructive way.

> +1
>>
>>> My complaint against pharo is that while the rest of the squeak
>>> community has been trying to modularize the image and treat more and
>>> more modules as external loadable packages. The pharo team goes back 3
>>> (?) years and ignores anything done in said external projects in the
>>
>> As a side note, Keith, I'm slightly getting annoyed being criticized
>> over again for what we do wrong in your opinion. To do it our own way
>> without conflicting with the Squeak way of doing (or not doing)
>> things, is why we left. I believe that we can profit from the common
>> effort, but it should happen in a constructive way.
>
> It would be nice that you stop to systematically bashing us.
> Why don't you the same with Etoys40, scratch, Croquet, opensophie?
>
> Stef